2013 GPU Availability vs 2020 GPU Availability

5 months before PS4 launch, there were 16 GPU’s under $1000 that we’re more powerful on PC then what was in store for PS4.

Fast Forward to June 2020, and there’s still just 1 GPU more powerful than what’s in store for Series X! The RTX 2080 Ti

Because of this I don’t understand the notion that this is “business as usual” for PC/Console Gaming at the start of a new gen.

At the start of last gen, these were your choices. And this isn’t even counting AMD’s 8000 series GPU’s, which we’re just a rehash of the 7000 series at lower prices.

• GTX 590 $699 2.5 TF March 2011
• GTX 670 $400 2.6 TF May 2012
• GTX 660 Ti $300 2.5 Teraflops Aug 2012
• GTX 680 $500 3.1 Teraflops March 2012
• GTX 690 $1000 Dual 2.8 TF May 2012
• GTX 760 $249 2.3 TF June 2013
• GTX 770 $399 3.2 TF May 2013
• GTX 780 $649 4 TF May 2013
• GTX Titan $999 4.5 TF Feb 2013
• 7870 Ghz Edition $350 2.6 TF March 2012
• 7870 XT $270 3.0 TF November 2012
• 7950 $450 2.9 TF Jan 2012

• 7950 Boost $330 3.3 TF Boost Aug 2012

• HD 7970 $550 3.8 TF Jan 2012
• 7970 Ghz Edition $500 4.3 TF June 2012
• HD 7990 $1000 Dual 4.1 TF April 2013

And last but not least, a separate stat completely, but just 2-3 months before PS4 launched, AMD released the R7 260X which outperformed PS4 for just $139.

So no, this is not business as usual for PC/Console Gaming at the start of a new gen, not even close.

All that matters are the GPUs available at the time of launch. Stop trying to spin this shit.

RTX 2080 Ti will be over two years old by the time the consoles release. The new GPUs will be out by then most likely too (depending on the pandemic situation).

Did I miss the release of the new consoles???

Also hilarious that console tards actually think it’s a sour point for hermits that multiplats for once won’t be held that much back because consoles aren’t total crap compared to pc upon release:)

Hey Mr. Alt Account, you probably never heard of overclocking, listed GTX Titan but forgot Titan V, RTX Titan + not to mention NVIDIA TFLOPS =/= AMD TFLOPS.

Weak trolling.

what is he trying to spin? it's no secret that the ps4 and especially the x1 were massively underpowered for their time.

and the reason for that was all the money they invested in the x360/ps3 war

I don't remember the 7870 being so expensive, looking back in my newegg records I paid $220 for a 2GB version in September 2012. The saddest part I remember was the 7850 handily beating the PS4 in performance tests for a few years in multiplats despite being a bit weaker of a GPU on paper; so glad both Sony and MS ditched the low-end laptop CPU's this coming gen.

I would say we have another round of hardware releases due this year so this thread is probably a bit premature. The human malware may disrupt that mind.

it would be interesting to revisit this thread once the XSX and PS5 are actually out and see the state of play then.

on the AMD GPU side they do really need to take down the 2080TI at this stage. Its going to be 2 years old in September and it's also on an older node. It should be fairly easy pickings with a beefed up RDNA2 based GPU....it REALLY should. if AMD still struggle to take that down with their next gen upper mid range GPU then that would be a bit concerning. Ideally there should be some distance between a 2080TI and their top of the range RDNA2 GPU (RX 6970 or whatever they plan to call it). They will also have Nvidias 3000 series RTX cards to contend with after all and nvidia have not been asleep.

Speaking of Nvidia, yeah the 3000 series. They will want people buying Nvidia GPUs for their existing PCs rather than getting consoles (unless its a switch maybe :P). so it will be interesting to see how they position their next gen cards in terms of price/performance. will they have a new outrageously priced 3080TI too? is it just going to be more of a node shrink or are their big architectural improvements coming too?

then there is intel...not sure what is happening with intels GPU to be honest. the noise around it is not good. they seem to be taking a compute focused approach with an architecture that, i have only heard, is not too different from vega. that's not great from a gaming perspective. but....ya never know. it is chipzilla....they could throw a massive wrench in the works.

We also have new CPUs from AMD....and maybe intel? there is good noise about zen3 though and the further improvements they have made to efficiency. I'm not sure what intel are up to at the moment.

B550 motherboards will also hopefully be out which will make the entry point for PCIE4 lower too.

and there is the even faster SSDs on the way.

so yeah...a lot can happen between now and the next gen console launch in the PC space.

FYI, RTX 2080 Ti's TU102 is the recovered defected yield. Titan RTX is the full TU102.

Titan V has a usable double-precision floating-point feature and Tensor cores but missing RT cores.

Titan RTX has RT cores with Tensor cores.

If OP wanted to make a point he should have named the number of GPU’s equal or faster than the SX at launch for the same price, probably $499 or less and there likely will be only 2 of them. 3070 and whatever equivalent AMD has.

There were like 14 at the PS4’s launch.

Learn to read

Likely a thread that will be made at launch :)

May be a 3090TI on the horizon allegedly.

Silliness from both sides.

B550 chipset looks like an upgraded X470 with working PEG v4.0 and a single PCI-E 4.0 NVMe slot from the CPU. The southbridge looks like PCI-E 3.0.

AMD's X570 chipset is still a semi-premium.

https://wccftech.com/amd-b550-pcie-gen-4-am4-3rd-gen-ryzen-cpu-motherboard-pictured/

AMD's B550 is similar to Intel's Rocket Lake-S motherboard design. LOL

Note that PS5/XSX's PCI-E 4.0 SSD levels may cause PC motherboard and CPU upgrades.

Series X has hermits shook, literally crying that their $5000 PCs wont hit the base requirements of next gen.

Learn to troll.
If a 2018's GPU can eat 2020's "next-gen" consoles for breakfast, i don't see what's your point...

Series X is just 8 months away, and still the $1000 2080 Ti is only 25-30% faster

8 months before PS4 the 7879 GHz Edition was $350 and 50% faster

You don’t see a point? The gap is closer than it has been for 2 decades.

Between Nvidia price gouging of the RTX line..... And the fact that AMD nor Nvidia have released their new gpu lines yet the gap may still be 50%+. So the whole premise of this thread is premature.

Once the consoles are out Ampere and Big Navi will be on the market. Big Navi alone could be a 60%+ jump over the XSX if leaks prove true, and that's not even expected to be the best on the market. Still a pretty large gap will be there for consoles vs PC.

Yeah, that's pretty much my point.

New CPU's and GPU's were supposed to drop on market this year, it's just that this pandemic shit doesn't make it "granted"...

It sucks that i have saved up almost 3K Euro for new build and now i'm literally "stuck" waiting...

1 GPU?... Sorry no the 2080 Super exists and I am sure a 2080 will beat it as well since we have no idea Ray Tracing ability AMD has, It is business as usual...

Better than PS5:

1. RTX 2060 S
2. RTX 2070
3. RTX 2070 S
4. RTX 2080
5. RTX 2080 S
6. RTX 2080 Ti

Better than XSX:

1. RTX 2080
2. RTX 2080 S
3. RTX 2080 Ti

Now including upcoming GPU's:

Better than PS5:

1. 5700 XT
2. RTX 2070
3. RTX 2070 S
4. RTX 2080
5. RTX 2080 S
6. RTX 2080 Ti
7. RTX 3060
8. RTX 3070
9. RTX 3080
10. RTX 3080 Ti
11. 6600 XT (5600 replacement)
12. 6700 (5700 replacement)
13. 6700 XT (5700 XT replacement)
14. 6900 XT "Big navi"

Better than XSX:

1. RTX 2080 S
2. RTX 2080 Ti
3. RTX 3070
4. RTX 3080
5. RTX 3080 Ti
6. 6700 XT
7. 6900 XT

Your argument is too early, come September these cards will all be out.

Also your 260X beating a PS4 is false... The 260X was on par to a 7790 in performance, the PS4 had a cut down 7870 that performed in between the 7850 and 7870 depending on the game.

Nice try though maybe you should wait till the consoles release and see how many cards can beat the consoles as we don't really know how well these consoles will do in the real world as frequencies and CU count doesn't give a fair representation the PS5 can easily fall short a 2060 S in some games and the XSX can fall behind a 2070 S in some games aswell.

PC gamers don't play at 4k they use 1080p or 1440p even 10k pc setups. Because 4k is simple useless and not pushable in any meaningful way ( aka 100+ fps with ultra settings ).

The only people that sit with 4k are people with dual 2080ti's or titans as they understand 4k is simple performance killing and consoles don't even get close towards such numbers.

So if you want to compare that 9-10tflop gpu on your PS5 towards a PC at 1080p? u can start at a 1060gtx and a 2060gtx for 1440p.

I aint going to form a list for you, but its massive and a whole new series of GPU's is about to enter from AMD and Nvidia that will push performance towards another level.

Also PS4 GPU = 7870, the rebrand of that was the 270 not the 260x.

The 7870 original was priced for 360 bucks.

Nothing changed, the only thing that changed is that they got better cpu's now and a better SSD solution. However the memory got hit hard specially for there 4k target PS5 is heavily crippled here also. It's the main complain that probably will rise this generation.

But keep dreaming mate.

You should probably stop making next gen predictions. On these forums you far and away have made the most incorrect predictions regarding Next Gen Consoles

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: Even using RDNA1 the PS5 will outperform 2060S, 2070, 2070S, 5700 XT. Try not to lose too much of your credibility.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf:

Here is one of your atrocious predictions from 8 months ago, This was in my thread, in which I predicted 52 CU’s.

Your response to my 52 CU prediction

@nfamouslegend:

How you figure if the PS5 was using RDNA 1.0 would out perform RTX 2060S-RTX 2070S ?..... It wouldn't because RDNA 1.0 is slower than RDNA 2.0 and reports indicate that PS5 with RDNA 2.0 is same realm as RTX 2070S.

The bolded are false.

660 Ti, 670, 680, 760 and 770 are the same ASIC GK104 silicon https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/nvidia-gk104.g108

Different SKUs refers to different GK104 yields and product renames.

7870 XT, 7950, 7950 Boost, 7970, 7970 GE and 7990 are the same ASIC Tahiti silicon. 7950 Boost is just AMD's aftermarket BIOS update for 7950. 7950 Boost bios update enabled boost modes for 7950.

RX 6700 and 6700 XT (40 CU, 11.4 TFLOPS at 2230Mhz) could be referring to NAVI 10's RDNA 2 update e.g. hardware feature and clock speed (due to perf/watts) updates. Akin to R7-370X. Important for AMD's mobile GPUs.

RX 6800 and 6800 XT could be referred to XSX's GPU design recycled for PC. 6800 XT's 56 CU with 2230 Mhz would yield 16 TFLOPS which is RTX 2080 Ti range. Akin to R9-380X.

"Big NAVI" would be divided into multiple SKUs e.g. RX-6900 and RX 6900 XT due to yield issues. IF RX 6900 XT has 80 CU at 2000 Mhz, it would yield 20.8 TFLOPS. Akin to R9-Fury X HBM SKU. RX 6900 XT could be based on HBM2e.

A guy with 50 posts is telling someone else they made all horrible predictions? Well, well, whose alt is this?

Tell me I’m wrong tho?

Just google “grey_eyed_elf” and keyword like “navi“ or ”teraflop”

Its non stop gems like this one:

@rdnav2 said:

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

@rdnav2 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

1 GPU?... Sorry no the 2080 Super exists and I am sure a 2080 will beat it as well since we have no idea Ray Tracing ability AMD has, It is business as usual...

Better than PS5:

1. RTX 2060 S
2. RTX 2070
3. RTX 2070 S
4. RTX 2080
5. RTX 2080 S
6. RTX 2080 Ti

Better than XSX:

1. RTX 2080
2. RTX 2080 S
3. RTX 2080 Ti

Now including upcoming GPU's:

Better than PS5:

1. 5700 XT
2. RTX 2070
3. RTX 2070 S
4. RTX 2080
5. RTX 2080 S
6. RTX 2080 Ti
7. RTX 3060
8. RTX 3070
9. RTX 3080
10. RTX 3080 Ti
11. 6600 XT (5600 replacement)
12. 6700 (5700 replacement)
13. 6700 XT (5700 XT replacement)
14. 6900 XT "Big navi"

Better than XSX:

1. RTX 2080 S
2. RTX 2080 Ti
3. RTX 3070
4. RTX 3080
5. RTX 3080 Ti
6. 6700 XT
7. 6900 XT

Your argument is too early, come September these cards will all be out.

Also your 260X beating a PS4 is false... The 260X was on par to a 7790 in performance, the PS4 had a cut down 7870 that performed in between the 7850 and 7870 depending on the game.

Nice try though maybe you should wait till the consoles release and see how many cards can beat the consoles as we don't really know how well these consoles will do in the real world as frequencies and CU count doesn't give a fair representation the PS5 can easily fall short a 2060 S in some games and the XSX can fall behind a 2070 S in some games aswell.

You should probably stop making next gen predictions. On these forums you far and away have made the most incorrect predictions regarding Next Gen Consoles

A guy with 50 posts is telling someone else they made all horrible predictions? Well, well, whose alt is this?

Tell me I’m wrong tho?

Just google “grey_eyed_elf” and keyword like “navi“ or ”teraflop”

Its non stop gems like this one:

My predictions where made based on TDP... Its clear both XSX and PS5 have pushed past all TDP targets consoles have used in the past the case design alone on the XSX is a clear indication that a traditional console wouldn't be able to pull off anything close to 12 TFLOPs and the PS5 does actually have a 5700 in terms of CU count its just heavily overclocked and according to the leaks is suffering for this with heat issues.

I make sound predictions based on information we know, you are putting out false information.

Making a opinion based on factual data is a INFORMED opinion... Fanboys guessing is a joke.

260X is more powerful than the PS4?... Jesus son a quick google search breaks all the "facts" you throw out.

@rdnav2 said:

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

A guy with 50 posts is telling someone else they made all horrible predictions? Well, well, whose alt is this?

Tell me I’m wrong tho?

Just google “grey_eyed_elf” and keyword like “navi“ or ”teraflop”

Its non stop gems like this one:

He was right on the spot, so is 04Carrier. Context is all that matters which you're conveniently trying to overlook. What's the TDP of PS5 and XSX in comparison to Pro/X1X and why the XSX is a tower design? It's a departure from the more conventional TDP budgets of consoles. Had the form factor remain the same both the predictions would be right on the spot.

Although a better question is how's the RT and ML capabilities of both XSX and PS5 compare to Turing? No that RT intersection number isn't comparable at all. They purposefully used that metric to avoid direct comparison with Turing or else they would look bad.

How could anyone claim anything on either side without fully knowing the RT, ML and other DX12 Ultimate capabilities? Or did I miss any RDNA 2 benchmarks?

The 2060 S to 2070 performance is where a heavily overclocked and power modded 5700 lands... It doesn't beat a stock 5700 XT.

Its 36CU's even at 2GHz doesn't compensate for the 4 CU cut from the XT.

Again I am going off what we know... These plums are going of what they think based on information we have none off.

Same old circle jerk bull.

Not to mention that the PS5 has a variable frequency which can drop lower than 2GHz... If the heat rumours are true.

The console won't be anymore powerful than a 2060 S.

5700 with 36 CU's lands behind a stock 2060 S by 7% and 11% slower than a 2070 and aftermarket 2060 S.

A PS5 with 36 CU with variable frequencies will be lucky to exceed a stock RTX 2060 Super.

The XSX will be around 2070 S to 2080 Performance but since we don't the the Ray Tracing power AMD has it can fall short off the 2080 when Ray Tracing is applied and maybe even aftermarket RTX 2070 Super's as they perform the same as a stock RTX 2080.

All the predictions I post are sound.

These guys are just plums.

Don't need to know the benchmarks. We've already seen the SX perform close to a 2080 and that was with a quickly put together port done in two weeks. The specifications from what we know should also land it squarely in the same performance bracket as a 2080 if not 2080S(which is barely faster anyway). It's false to pretend it falls below the 2080. As far as we know, they're neck and neck or the difference is so small, it's irrelevant.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

The 2060 S to 2070 performance is where a heavily overclocked and power modded 5700 lands... It doesn't beat a stock 5700 XT.

Its 36CU's even at 2GHz doesn't compensate for the 4 CU cut from the XT.

Again I am going off what we know... These plums are going of what they think based on information we have none off.

Same old circle jerk bull.

Not to mention that the PS5 has a variable frequency which can drop lower than 2GHz... If the heat rumours are true.

The console won't be anymore powerful than a 2060 S.

5700 with 36 CU's lands behind a stock 2060 S by 7% and 11% slower than a 2070 and aftermarket 2060 S.

A PS5 with 36 CU with variable frequencies will be lucky to exceed a stock RTX 2060 Super.

The XSX will be around 2070 S to 2080 Performance but since we don't the the Ray Tracing power AMD has it can fall short off the 2080 when Ray Tracing is applied and maybe even aftermarket RTX 2070 Super's as they perform the same as a stock RTX 2080.

All the predictions I post are sound.

These guys are just plums.

The rumors are based on absolutely nothing other than "it's clocked too high to be believable". Then you're using an RDNA1 card to prove a point about an RDNA2 card. If the metrics are to be believed, the PS5 should be comparable to a 2070S. It's not gonna be weaker than a 2070(at worst it'll be about equal) let alone a 2060S.

No, we didn't. What we have seen is a claim from the platform holder. Not the same. We still don't know how they modified the actual game, not to mention Gears 5 isn't even the most hardware demanding game out there. Lastly we haven't seen the RT, ML and all the other DX12 Ultimate capabilities. Again going as per MS own claims the Minecraft RT runs at half the frame rate of Turing.

What we do know is the ML still runs on the same shader cores so in any such scenario the performance will also take a hit compare to Turing.

Digital Foundry witnessed the test run at Ultra settings and a 3950X/2080 at Microsoft's office in Redmond and compared it to an SX and they said it performed "very close to a 2080". Doesn't matter if it isn't the most hardware demanding, it's plenty hardware demanding to run it at 4K/Ultra settings. It also lines up perfectly with the metrics. They got the video on their channel.

Comparing raster performance obviously. No one knows how RT performs so claiming it's better or weaker is supported by very little from either side.

We have no idea where RDNA 2 falls into the performance stack..... Could AMD's claims that its v2 has 50% better performance per watt over v1 be true, sure, but at the same time AMD is also to known to fudge numbers... So we could only see only 30-35% of actual better performance per watt and their relying on move to 7nm+ to get the other 15-20%? its possible.

There is only tidbits of info about this new architecture, but we do know that v2 is going to surpass Turing, since there is only around a 24% difference in performance compared to TFLOP numbers and performance per watt. Also we know that RDNA v2 RT performance is tied to CU counts... More you have the better its going to perform.. So that means that PS5 isn't going to do RT better than XsX and most likely RTX 2070 series of gpus.

These assertions should be revisited in few months, interesting thing to compare but we don't know what things will look like few months from now. Even then too we might have to factor what potential economic recession/depression will have on GPU market, like maybe prices for high end GPUs might go down so people can afford them, or maybe complications in supplies, production, etc, might increase high end GPU price. Nonetheless, we gotta wait and see.

XSX = Very close to a RTX 2080

Yet you think a PS5 is going to be RTX 2070 S performance?...

Seriously stop.

A PS5 has 36 CU with 100+MB/s less memory bandwidth than a XSX with 52 CU and 2TFLOP's faster... Which according to you is the difference of PS5 being RTX 2070 S and the XSX being Very close to RTX 2080?....

Nah. That makes no sense.

The XSX being almost close to a RTX 2080 puts it in a overcloked RTX 2070 S performance which then would put a PS5 at 2060 S performance... based on that alone its clear that Navi may be 50% more efficient but it has little to no IPC boost meaning RDNA at the same TFLOP count will be similar to RDNA2.

EDIT:

We know a little about ray tracing performance.

Minecraft ray tracing was running at 1080P with a XSX at a framerate from 30-60.. i.e not smooth or locked at 60FPS.

A RTX 2080 Ti had no issue with it at 1080/60 Locked.

And Nvidia is targeting RTX 2060 for 1080p, with the 2080 Ti at 1440P, which is why all the screenshots on nvidia's site is at 1440p.

The little information we know points to one direction... RDNA2 has improved TDP but IPC is the same, and the ray tracing ability is weaker than Turing.

They witnessed it under controlled settings. Did they get to dissect it in depth? Did they test the final build? Considering it as an evidence is the same as when Ron goes on about X1X better than or equal to 1070 based on Forza.

How could anyone claim the capabilities of anything when you haven't put in under stressed at all? In terms of games, RDR 2 or Control would be a much better candidate.

50% better performance per watt just means that it uses less power... It has nothing to do with TFLOP vs TFLOP, that is IPC.

DF said the XSX performed CLOSE to a RTX 2080... Meaning its at overclocked RTX 2070 S performance. So all these fanboys freaking out and claiming the only GPU better than a XSX is a 2080 Ti are just ignoring the ONLY information we know.

Same as Ray Tracing ability based on Minecraft alone puts the XSX at RTX 2060 - 2070 levels based on Nvidia's target and the fact that the XSX couldn't lock a 60FPS at 1080P when a Ti did it with ease and is targeting 1440P with Minecraft.

PS5 = RTX 2060 S

XSX = RTX 2070 S

Ray Tracing abilities on both a tier lower than their rasterization performance compared to Nvidia...

PS5 = RTX 2060

XSX = RTX 2070

Based all on information we know. No fanboy bulls*** and things pulled from the air.

There will be more PC GPU’s faster by the time the console releases, and then by the time the console gets up to speed within a year of release the PC will yet again be the best way to game.

@pc_rocks said:

@rdnav2 said:

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

A guy with 50 posts is telling someone else they made all horrible predictions? Well, well, whose alt is this?

Tell me I’m wrong tho?

Just google “grey_eyed_elf” and keyword like “navi“ or ”teraflop”

Its non stop gems like this one:

He was right on the spot, so is 04Carrier. Context is all that matters which you're conveniently trying to overlook. What's the TDP of PS5 and XSX in comparison to Pro/X1X and why the XSX is a tower design? It's a departure from the more conventional TDP budgets of consoles. Had the form factor remain the same both the predictions would be right on the spot.

Although a better question is how's the RT and ML capabilities of both XSX and PS5 compare to Turing? No that RT intersection number isn't comparable at all. They purposefully used that metric to avoid direct comparison with Turing or else they would look bad.

No he wasn’t spot on.

He assumed Navi was just 1 GPU for the longest time, and GTX 1080 level Performance.

He assumed Navi was just GCN all over again

He assumed Next Gen Consoles would Get old AMD GPU Tech

He assumed GPU’s can’t be downclocked to get better efficiency per watt

He Assumed AMD GPU efficiency would remain stagnant for years.

Mistake after mistake had him adamantly predicting 8-9 GCN Teraflops.

In the end we got 12.2 RDNA Teraflops which is the equivalent to 14-15 GCN Teraflops.

He was massively wrong

@rdnav2 said:

@pc_rocks said:

@rdnav2 said:

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

A guy with 50 posts is telling someone else they made all horrible predictions? Well, well, whose alt is this?

Tell me I’m wrong tho?

Just google “grey_eyed_elf” and keyword like “navi“ or ”teraflop”

Its non stop gems like this one:

He was right on the spot, so is 04Carrier. Context is all that matters which you're conveniently trying to overlook. What's the TDP of PS5 and XSX in comparison to Pro/X1X and why the XSX is a tower design? It's a departure from the more conventional TDP budgets of consoles. Had the form factor remain the same both the predictions would be right on the spot.

Although a better question is how's the RT and ML capabilities of both XSX and PS5 compare to Turing? No that RT intersection number isn't comparable at all. They purposefully used that metric to avoid direct comparison with Turing or else they would look bad.

No he wasn’t spot on.

He assumed Navi was just 1 GPU for the longest time, and GTX 1080 level Performance.

He assumed Navi was just GCN all over again

He assumed Next Gen Consoles would Get old AMD GPU Tech

He assumed GPU’s can’t be downclocked to get better efficiency per watt

He Assumed AMD GPU efficiency would remain stagnant for years.

Mistake after mistake had him adamantly predicting 8-9 GCN Teraflops.

In the end we got 12.2 RDNA Teraflops which is the equivalent to 14-15 GCN Teraflops.

He was massively wrong

Jesus grasping at straws.

My "assumptions" were based on information we had.

• He assumed Navi was just 1 GPU for the longest time, and GTX 1080 level Performance. = That was the rumour at that time

• He assumed Navi was just GCN all over again = That was what AMD had on their road map

• He assumed Next Gen Consoles would Get old AMD GPU Tech = No I didn't

• He assumed GPU’s can’t be downclocked to get better efficiency per watt = What? My entire predictions where based on TDP you cum bucket.

• He Assumed AMD GPU efficiency would remain stagnant for years = Nope

I prediction that PS5 and X4 would be 5700 peformance based on TDP and what to we have?... PS5 has the same CU count as a 5700 and the only way the XSX got more than that was because its using FAR more power than a traditional console and is using a case design to accommodate that heat.

My predictions adjust when ever new information comes out because that is what sane people do, its basic science you adapt to information you know.

And if it was a GCN GPU it would be 8-9 TFLOPS in a traditional console design and TDP because RDNA and GCN are completely different beast when it comes to TDP.

Yes the XSX is very close together to a 2080 in a port mashed up together in two weeks. The 2080 is about 18% faster than the 2070S which is incidentally the compute performance difference between the XSX and the PS5. 2070S is what I expect and at worse it might perform in the ballpark of a 2070. 2060S is a farce. Most of their differences are within the 15-25% range depending of the metric.

Quit uisng your RDNA2 examples, we don't even know how well it scales with clock speeds compared to its predecessor and most of all we have no idea how devs are gonna use that performance. DF already did the homework and fully admitted the methodology was flawed so I have no idea why you keep bringing it back.

If anything you should stop.

We know Forza is bullshit because prior to the driver updates, AMD cards performed incredibly better than NVIDIA cards to the point a freakin' 5700XT could beat a 2080 Ti. Gears of War doesn't do anything of the sort. Not to mention it was quickly scrambled to have something to show. Done in 2 weeks with very little optimization.

You dudes are in for a rude awakening once the performance reviews for the new consoles are out. I sure as heck don't expect them to beat top-tier GPU's but suggesting a 2080 isn't a wash with the Series X is just completely biased bullshit.

Anyway, we'll see it when it happens. No need to argue over incomplete information.

Gears 5 built-in benchmarks at PC ultra settings from XSX gives us hints for RDNA 2 with 52 CU at 1825 Mhz.

Scale RX 5700 XT's 40 fps by another 25% would land on RTX 2080 level.

Gears 5 (Unreal Engine 4.x) is not like AMD friendly Battlefield V or Forza Motosport 7/Horizon 4